United States: What You Need to Know About The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Last Updated: September 23 2015
Article by   Orrick

Last year, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws ("NCCUSL") rolled out one of its latest projects, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act ("UVTA").1 According to NCCUSL's website,2 the model statute has already been enacted in eight states, including California (where it takes effect on January 1, 2016), and has been introduced in four others, including Massachusetts.

The first thing to know about the UVTA is that it is the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA")3 with a new name and the legal equivalent of a fresh coat of paint. In a lengthy article about the drafting of the model statute4, the reporter for the NCCUSL drafting committee, Professor Kenneth C. Kettering, describes the model statute as "the UFTA, renamed and lightly amended." As light as the amendments may be, however, Kettering notes that they are "significant enough to warrant attention"5—significant enough, at least, to justify his publishing a 57-page law review article on the subject. The extensive "Official Comments" that were promulgated by NCCUSL along with the model statute also provide some insight into the thinking of the drafters, but Professor Kettering's article is far more forthcoming about the reasoning behind the proposed statutory changes. Anyone who wants the full story should, therefore, consult Professor Kettering's article. We will try here instead simply to describe the most significant provisions in the new or, at least, improved model statute.

New Nomenclature

Throughout the model statute, not just in the name, the term "fraudulent transfer" is replaced with the term "voidable transaction." The drafters felt that the continued use of the word "fraudulent" in connection with the statute was misleading since the kinds of transactions that are commonly described as involving "constructive fraud" (those in which an insolvent debtor makes a transfer or incurs an obligation for less than reasonably equivalent value) do not involve any kind of fraud and even transactions described as being "actual fraudulent transfers" (those made "with intent to hinder, delay or defraud" creditors) do not necessarily involve fraudulent intent.

This mislabeling has had some real consequences. On occasion, for example, courts mistakenly applied the heightened pleading requirement for "fraud" to complaints alleging the existence of a fraudulent transfer or have required the plaintiff to prove its case by a stricter standard of proof than would ordinarily apply in civil actions. To try to prevent such errors, the drafters effectively eliminated the words "fraud" and "fraudulent" from the statute.

New Choice of Law Rule

Courts have almost literally been all over the map in their attempts to discern which jurisdiction's law to apply under the UFTA. According to Professor Kettering, "[i]nability to predict which jurisdiction's voidable transfer law will apply" adds to the transaction costs and, if the matter ever goes to court, the litigation costs. 6

Accordingly, in its Section 10, the UVTA sets forth a choice of law rule to be applied in all cases under the statute. It instructs that a voidable transaction claim is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the debtor is "located" when the challenged transfer was made or the challenged obligation incurred. For this purpose, a debtor that is an individual is "located" at the individual's principal residence, and a debtor that is an organization is "located" at it place of business if it has only one and, if it has more than one place of business, at its chief executive office.

This rule, while helpful, will not dispose of all potential disputes about the debtor's location. (Similar rules relating to the location of the debtor under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code have, over the years, engendered considerable litigation.) Still, it narrows the area of potential dispute if the parties get into litigation and gives transactional lawyers considerable guidance, if not always a definitive answer to choice of law issues.

The chief import of this choice of law rule is that, when the UVTA applies, those who transact business with a debtor need to be prepared to analyze the potential voidability of the transaction under the laws of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located—not, for example, the jurisdiction where the property transferred is located.

Another import of this choice of law rule is that in a jurisdiction that has adopted the UVTA the courts will look to the avoidance law of the debtor's location whether that happens to be another state or even another country. According to Professor Kettering, that is the case even if the law of the debtor's location has "debased" or effectively eliminated its avoidance laws in order to promote "asset protection trusts" or "asset tourism"7

New Variations on Definition of Insolvency

Whether or not the transferor was "insolvent" at the time of the transfer is not an essential element in cases where the transfer is made with "intent to hinder, delay or defraud" creditors, but many, perhaps most cases, under the fraudulent transfer law have not involved allegations of intent to hinder, delay or defraud. Instead those cases turn on a combination of two factors: one, absence of reasonably equivalent value (or, in older parlance, fair consideration) and, two, some form of insolvency.

The definition of "insolvency" has always, therefore, been one of the cornerstones of fraudulent transfer law. Not surprisingly, the UVTA leaves the UFTA's definition of "insolvency" largely intact, but it does tweak it in a number of ways.

First, in Section 2(a), the definition is reworded to make it clear that, if the case for insolvency turns on the debtor's having more liabilities than assets, both the liabilities and the assets must be subject to "fair valuation." According to the Official Comments to Section 2, "[n]o change in meaning is intended."

Second, in Section 2(b), the UVTA changes the wording of the provision that deals with insolvency based on the failure to pay debts as they come due. In the UFTA, insolvency is rebuttably presumed based upon such failure. The UVTA makes clear that, for purposes of applying this presumption, a court should disregard debts that are subject to a bona fide dispute. According to the Official Comments to Section 2, "[t]hat was the intended meaning of the language" in the prior model statute. (The presumption, it is worth noting, imposes on the defendant the burden of proving that the nonexistence of insolvency is more probable than its existence.)

Finally, and most substantively, while both the UFTA and the Bankruptcy Code contain special definitions for "insolvent" in the case of partnerships, the UVTA eliminates that special treatment and subjects partnerships to same test of insolvency as other debtors. (For the determination of insolvency, the UFTA and the Bankruptcy Code add to the value of the partnership assets the aggregate net worth of the partnership's general partners; the UVTA does not.)

New Allocation of Burden of Proof

The UFTA says nothing about which party must carry the burden of proof in fraudulent transfer cases or what standard of proof a court is supposed to require. The UVTA fills in the gaps on these issues.

With regard to the burden of proof, Section 8(g) of the UVTA allocates to the plaintiff creditor the burden of proof on the following issues:

  • With respect to Section 8(b):
    • Proof of the value of the asset transferred or of the amount of the creditor's claim, whichever is less.
    • Proof that the defendant was the first transferee (the "Initial Transferee") or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made or was an immediate or mediate transferee of the Initial Transferee (a "Subsequent Transferee").
  • With respect to Section 8(c), if the judgment is based on the value of the asset transferred, proof of the value of the asset as of the time of the transfer (subject to adjustment as the equities might require).

With regard to the burden of proof, Section 8(g) of the UVTA allocates to the defendant transferee (or, where applicable, obligee) the burden of proof on the following issues:

  • With respect to Section 8(a), proof that the Initial Transferee (or obligee) took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value given to the debtor. (Note: the qualification that the value be given specifically "to the debtor" is added by the UVTA.)
  • With respect to Section 8(b)(ii)(A) or (B), if the defendant was a Subsequent Transferee, proof that such Subsequent Transferee was either a good faith transferee who took for value (a "Good Faith Subsequent Transferee") or an immediate or mediate transferee of a Good Faith Subsequent Transferee.
  • With respect to section 8(d), proof that the transferee (or obligee) is a "good faith transferee or obligee" entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor, to (1) a lien or a right to retain an interest in the asset transferred, (2) enforcement of an obligation incurred, or (3) a reduction in the amount of liability on the judgment.
  • With respect to Section 8(e), proof that a transfer that is allegedly voidable as what we used to call a "constructively fraudulent transfer" or as a voidable insider transfer is, in fact, not voidable because it results from (1) certain types of lease termination or (2) enforcement of security interest under Article 9 (other than by way of acceptance of all or part of the collateral).
  • With respect to 8(f), proof that a transfer to an insider that would otherwise be voidable is rendered not voidable because (1) the insider gave new value to the debtor after receiving the transfer (and only not voidable to the extent of such new value), (2) the transfer was made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and of the insider, or (3) the transfer was made "pursuant to a good-faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor."

New Statutory Standard of Proof

Section 8(h) establishes that the "standard of proof required to establish matters referred to in this section s preponderance of the evidence." This is intended to override judicial decisions that have applied a stricter evidentiary standard to cases involving "actual fraud" or even, in a few cases, "constructive fraud."

New Provisions Regarding Series Organizations

Arguably, the greatest innovation in the UVTA is Section 11, which deals with a relatively new type of business known as a "series organization." A series organization is an entity whose organizational documents authorize it to create special obligations that can be satisfied only out of certain assets of the entity and whose other obligations cannot be satisfied out of those protected assets. According to Professor Kettering, twelve states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have enacted statutes that permit the creation of a series organization (although not all such statutes employ the term "series organization"), and most of those apply to limited liability companies or LLCs, but, in theory, any type of business organization could be a series organization.8

Under the current state of the law, it is not clear whether a protected series created by a series organization is to be treated as a separate legal entity (analogous to a corporate subsidiary) or is to be treated as part of the organization as a whole (analogous to a corporate division).9 This creates some interesting issues in the context of a fraudulent transfer or voidable transactions statute. As Professor Kettering has noted, if "a series is not a legal person, then no disposition of the property allocated to it to another series or to the 'mother ship' can possibly be a voidable transfer under the UFTA."10

To address these issues, the UVTA specifies, in Section 11(b), that a "series organization and each protected series of the organization is a separate person for purposes of this [Act], even if for other purposes a protected series is not a person separate from the organization or other protected series of the organization."

NCCUSL notes that this provision should be enacted even in states that do not authorize the creation of protected series on the ground that, under choice of law rules, a court may have to apply the law of another jurisdiction that does enable the creation of protected series.

A Note on California and Uniformity

It is significant that California, the nation's largest state, has enacted the UVTA.11 The statute goes into effect, in place of the UFTA, on January 1, 2016, as Sections 3439 et. seq. of the California Civil Code.

It is, however, equally significant that California did not enact the UVTA in its entirety. It did not, for example, adopt Section 11 regarding series organizations, nor did it enact the UVTA's "insider preference" avoidance provisions that were carried over, virtually verbatim, from the UFTA (California did not adopt those UFTA provisions, either)12, and it retained certain non-uniform provisions that had been previously been inserted into California's version of the UFTA.13

Still, California did enact the UVTA's choice of law rules in new Cal. Civil Code section 3439.10, as a result of which, depending on the jurisdiction in which the debtor is deemed located, California courts and California creditors may find themselves looking to the laws of a jurisdiction like Delaware (that still has the UFTA but also authorizes the creation of protected series) or New York (that still employs the pre-UFTA model statute, the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, promulgated in 1918). In that regard, whether the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act actually turns out to be a step toward further uniformity remains an open question.

Footnotes

[1] http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/Fraudulent%20Transfer/2014_AUVTA_Final%20Act.pdf

[2] http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Voidable Transactions Act Amendments (2014) – Formerly Fraudulent Transfer Act

[3] http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Fraudulent Transfer Act – now known as Voidable Transactions Act

[4] Kettering, "The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; or, the 2014 Amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act," 70 Bus. Law. 777 (2015) (hereinafter, cited as "Kettering").

[5] Kettering at 779.

[6i]Kettering at 795.

[7] Kettering at 801.

[8] Kettering at 828-829.

[9] Routledge, "Again, For the Want of a Theory: The Challenge of the 'Series' to Business Organization Law," 46 Am. Bus. L.J. 311 (2009).

[10] Kettering at 830.

[11] Cal. SB No. 161, filed with the California Secretary of State on July 2, 2015.

[12] Compare UFTA Section 5(b) and UVTA Section 5(b) with Cal Civil Code Section 3439.05.

[13] Compare, for example, UVTA Section 7 (Remedies of Creditor) with Section 3439.07 of the California Civil Code (both in its current UFTA-inspired version and in its future UVTA-inspired version).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.